AUGUST 2025 | 15 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. coercion. The conduct must rise to a level of serious compulsion or abuse of power. For example, verbal harassment or unwelcome compliments, without more, would remain solely a Title VII matter. The TVPA’s civil remedy is available only to victims of crimes defined in the anti-trafficking chapter of the U.S. Code. In practice, application of the TVPA in employment contexts requires that the misconduct rise to the level of forced labor or commercial sex acts obtained through force, fraud or coercion. Unlike Title VII, which may impose liability even where conduct is ostensibly welcome but tied to quid pro quo propositions, the TVPA focuses on situations where the victim lacked real autonomy or meaningful choice due to coercive pressures. Thus, the statute’s reach is confined to extreme, exploitative circumstances ranging from the dramatic but realistic example that opened this article to allegations akin to the Combs case or less visible but equally coercive dynamics, such as threats of deportation, serious reputational harm or manipulation of immigration status. LIMITATIONS: PRACTITIONERS SHOULD ALSO UNDERSTAND THE LIMITS AND PROCEDURAL NUANCES OF TVPA CIVIL ACTIONS A notable provision is that if a criminal investigation or prosecution related to the same conduct is underway, a civil TVPA suit must be stayed at the government’s request.28 The statute mandates a stay “during the pendency of any criminal action arising out of the same occurrence in which the claimant is the victim.” This is a valuable coordination mechanism that prevents a civil lawsuit from interfering with a criminal human trafficking prosecution, but it can delay the civil case for an extended period. In the opening hypothetical, if prosecutors charged the supervisor under a trafficking statute, the assistant’s civil suit would pause until the criminal case concludes. Additionally, while the TVPA allows suits against individuals (unlike Title VII), collecting a judgment from an individual perpetrator may be difficult if they lack assets. The risk of a perpetrator being judgment-proof is a practical consideration. However, the TVPA also permits suing those who “knowingly benefit” from a trafficking venture.29 This can include companies or employers in some circumstances. For instance, an employer who turns a blind eye to a manager’s coerced sex-for-jobs scheme could potentially face liability as benefiting from the labor or commercial sex obtained. This is an emerging and complex area, essentially a form of vicarious liability, and courts are still grappling with the contours of “knowing benefit” in the employment context. The TVPA is made much more potent when combined with a permissive statute of limitations, particularly for civil actions related to sexual abuse and other sexual misconduct. It was thanks to New York’s Adult Survivor’s Act, for example, that Cassie Ventura was able to bring her case against Sean Combs; the act established a one-year period (Nov. 24, 2023, to Nov. 24, 2024) during which adult survivors of sexual abuse could file civil lawsuits regardless of when the abuse actually occurred. Unfortunately, Oklahoma’s statute of limitations for civil actions involving sex abuse is relatively short; 12 O.S. §95 allows for the maintenance of such lawsuits for only two years after the act or, for situations where the victim’s discovery of the abuse was delayed, two years from the date the abuse was actually discovered or from the date that the abuse should reasonably have been discovered. While these limitations persist in Oklahoma for civil cases, encouraging progress has been made in the criminal law space.30 Finally, one should recognize that the TVPA’s civil cause of action was not available at all until 2003. Earlier victims of workplace sexual exploitation had no option of bringing a trafficking-based civil claim. Even today, not every provision of the anti-trafficking laws gives rise to a private civil claim for damages. For example, one federal court noted that the TVPA’s prohibition on obstruction of trafficking enforcement (18 U.S.C. §1591(d)) does not itself create a private cause of action for victims. The court reasoned that the “victim” of an obstruction offense is the government, not the individual trafficked, and thus, a private plaintiff cannot sue under §1591(d).31 Such nuances aside, the core offenses of forced labor and sex trafficking do plainly confer civil causes of action to victims through §1595. Congress has steadily expanded – not contracted – the TVPA’s reach over time, including eliminating any statute of limitations for trafficking civil claims by younger victims.32
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==